As a relational database professional I couldn’t help but feel like something would be lost with the emergence of the new Big Data/NoSQL database management systems (DBMS). After about two years of buzz around the topic, I’m really excited about the emerging possibilities. However, I’m pretty sure we’ll miss the relational model’s strengths in requirements definition and conceptual design. Continue reading
In the past I’ve never understood what people really mean they say “think outside the box” but Jim Harris, in a recent OCDQ blog post, helped me figure it out.
Mr. Harris ends with this provocative line: “the bottom line is Google and Facebook have socialized data in order to capitalize data as a true corporate asset.” The post starts with a cold war analogy and proceeds to describe how Facebook and Google have made big money as “internet advertising agencies:” offering free services with which users (like us) serve up personal data in return for use of the service, then selling advertising space based on our data (hopefully anonymized).
I’m a data modeler, so I enjoyed Jonathon Geiger’s recent article entitled “Why Does Data Modeling Take So Long”. But why does he say it like it’s a bad thing?
Mr. Geiger’s bottom line is exactly right: “Most of the time spent developing data models is consumed developing or clarifying the requirements and business rules and ensuring that the data structure can be populated by the existing data sources.” On the projects he describes, no one took time before modeling to determine available data sources and identify business entities of interest, relationships among them, and attributes that describe them before database design started, so the data modeler had to do it.
Recently there has been a long, and very interesting, discussion of do-it-yourself versus third-party metadata tools on LinkedIn’s TDWI BI and DW discussion forum (membership required to follow the link). I have followed but haven’t commented, but I suppose I contributed when Information Management kindly published my article on DIY metadata.
The discussion is extremely informative, presenting the views of a variety of knowledgeable professionals in different situations, and describing successful and sometimes not-so-successful efforts to solve the essential metadata challenge: how to document what information is locked up in databases. Continue reading
I’ve often thought that conceptual data modeling was an underused tool in the arsenal available to requirements analysts, and in a recent conversation I found that many were surprised that it would be used in the requirements phase at all. Checking the Business Analysis Body of Knowledge (BABOK) I found data modeling listed among the tools available to requirements analysts to “to describe the concepts relevant to a domain, the relationships between those concepts, and information associated with them.” There’s also Steve Hoberman’s excellent book on the topic, Data Modeling for the Business, an introduction to data modeling aimed at a business audience. Continue reading
In a new post at Insurance Networking News Ara Trembly provides a balanced perspective on IT/business misalignment (Business/IT Misalignment: Whose Responsibility?). He describes the problem as cultural, more amenable to relational than management solutions. His conclusion sums it up: “Take a geek/suit to lunch today!”
To me (speaking as an IT professional) IT should take the initiative to solve the problem. Continue reading
It seems I’m frequently in conversations about using null to represent a business value. To paraphrase, say there are credit and cash customers, and there’s a suggestion to set “Customer_Type” to “C” for credit and null for cash. To data and database professionals this is obviously a bad idea, but it’s not obvious from a business point of view. Continue reading
Recently I was asked for a high level requirements plan for a large IT conversion. I googled around a little for something standard. I found some good references (see links at the bottom of this post), but not exactly what I was looking for: a simple, method-agnostic layout of the high level steps and checkpoints in requirements for a big project, emphasizing interactions with business people. I then rifled my files to find the example below. Continue reading
Free form diagramming doesn’t only mean “no rules”, it also means “just right”.
This post, last in a three part series on free form diagramming, gives some simple guidelines for getting the technique right. Part one talked about the tension between rigor and expression in diagramming for analysis and design, and how more precise diagrams can hinder rather than help communications with business people. Part two reviewed free form diagramming in practice.
While it is impossible to specify format and structure of a free form diagram in advance, here are some useful guidelines to follow when building your free form diagram:
• Rule number one: draw it as you see it. Typically, an analyst uses a free form diagram because he/she already pictures a business process. Trust your mental picture and get it down on the page. Then, go through the following checklist to make sure it says what you want it to say.
• Model real world processes, things, and events. Free form diagrams have one great advantage over Use Case Diagrams, Data Flow Diagrams, and the rest: they are concrete rather than abstract. For example, in a free form diagram you can symbolize a shopper with a clipart picture of someone choosing a soup can from a grocery store shelf. The free form diagram should clearly represent things from the real world: organizations, locations, business processes, interfaces, etc.
• Use symbols consistently. Look at each repeated rectangle, line, circle, icon, etc, and verify that everything with the same shape represents the same type of thing or event.
• Speak the language of the audience. A free form diagram should depict things business people care about in recognizable terms. For example, accountants might readily understand boxes labeled GL, AP and AR for general ledger, accounts payable, and accounts receivable. A shipping clerk might quickly interpret a process illustration showing labeled icons shaped like trucks and warehouses.
• Arrangement on the page conveys meaning. Frequently, free form diagrams group objects that belong together on the page. In other cases, the diagram shows a definite process flow by the arrangement of objects. For example, Business Intelligence Architecture diagrams typically show information flow from source systems on the left to business reporting on the right. Could this kind of flow or grouping improve your diagram?
• Limit the number and complexity of objects on the diagram. Most often, a meaningful diagram shows relatively few objects, organizes them in a sensible way, and does not cross lines. If you need many objects to tell the story, reduce complexity by arranging them logically.
• Work at one level of detail, or clearly indicate differences between levels of detail. If your diagram includes a box labeled “AP System” then it would not likely make sense for it also to contain another labeled “Journal Voucher Key”. Diagrams that communicate well are all at the same level of detail or clearly indicate differences in level of detail.
The free form diagram can be an essential part of a successful IT application project by enabling all to understand the target system in the same way and helping business people understand critical functionality.
This is part two of a three part series on free form diagramming for IT projects. This entry reviews free form diagramming in practice. Part one talked about the tension between rigor and expression in diagramming for analysis and design, and how more precise diagrams can hinder rather than help communications with business people. Part three will provide a few simple guidelines for getting it right.
Some current development tools and methods do include the free form diagram in their toolbox. For example, Scott Ambler’s Agile Modeling site includes a page on free form diagrams (http://www.agilemodeling.com/artifacts/freeForm.htm), and the IBM tool XDE has provided an integrated free form diagram (http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/rational/library/915.html).
Free form diagrams can be especially useful in illustrating the overall scope of an IT development effort. For example, XDE product literature cites the free form diagram’s “capabilities to communicate broad ideas about the direction of [a] solution”. IT software product marketers frequently bear out this advantage over structured modeling with attractive diagrams describing their products and services, as in the diagram above. Such diagrams enable companies to “level set” the terms of a conversation, providing a reference point for providing more detailed information about the product.
A similar diagram can provide a reference for IT project participants. One, produced jointly early on in custom development of a financial system by the primary business contact and project architect, helped build consensus with designers, database administrators, programmers, and business people. Some on the project considered this shared vision of the planned system one key to the project’s success.
Both of these examples illustrate the most common use of the free form diagram: to depict “the fundamental organization of a system [or business function], embodied in its components, their relationships to each other and the environment, and the principles governing its design and evolution” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_architecture).
Because the free form diagram can seem more concrete than other, more abstract, models, a well-constructed free form diagram is a great way to communicate complexity to an audience of both technical and non-technical participants.
The free form diagram is also useful in other situations. Sometimes a requirements team works with business users who have a diagram describing their current process. In that case the team might use the same format to describe the new process. In other cases it might be useful to improve readability by drawing a process flow on a map of the shop floor, or using icons representing real objects and events rather than class symbols on a class model. The point is to create a medium that precisely matches the audience with the message.
Part 3 of the Free Form Diagrams series provides a few simple guidelines for success with this technique.